Stevenson v. DG Retail, LLC

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING 35 First MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by DG Retail, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/19/2021. (lmo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KIMBERLY STEVENSON
Plaintiff,
v.
DG Retail LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-cv-305-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees and
Expenses (Doc. 35). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 42). Defendant asks the Court to award it
attorney fees and expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Defendant explains
that “after filing suit, Plaintiff took no action to pursue her claim.” She did not send take any
depositions, nor did she make any disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
She did not send any written discovery requests to Defendant. This case was set for trial on
October 5, 2021 but was continued when the Court learned that the law firm representing Plaintiff
did not intend to represent her at trial (Doc. 32).1 Defendant asks the Court to order Plaintiff
and/or her former attorneys to reimburse Defendant for the expenses and attorney fees it incurred
“preparing for the trial scheduled for October 5, 2021.”
Regardless of Plaintiff’s inaction, Rule 37 sanctions are not warranted.
1

The Court

After Plaintiff’s attorneys filed multiple motions to withdraw and the Court conducted a hearing on the issue, the
undersigned allowed Plaintiff’s attorneys to withdrawn from this matter (Docs. 34, 36, 38-41, 44, 45). As of today’s
date, Plaintiff has not entered her appearance pro se nor has a new attorney appeared on her behalf, but the time for
doing so has not yet expired (Doc. 45).

Page 1 of 2

declines to sanction Plaintiff for failing to provide her initial disclosures when Defendant never
moved to compel those disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

The Court may, pursuant to

Rule 37, sanction a party for 1) failing to obey any Court orders regarding discovery; 2) failing to
appear for a deposition; 3) failing to answer written discovery. None of those scenarios occurred
in this matter. Rule 37 does not contemplate sanctions where the plaintiff simply does not take
advantage of the discovery process to prepare her case for trial.
Of course, the Court also holds inherent authority to sanction a litigant who “has willfully
abused the judicial process or otherwise conducted litigation in bad faith.” Fuery v. City of
Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 463 (quoting Tucker v. Williams, 682 F.3d 654, 661-62 (7th Cir. 2012)).
Defendant deposed Plaintiff and contends that it otherwise prepared for trial by complying with
the Court’s Scheduling Order and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, though the Court notes that
Defendant never filed its pretrial disclosures that were due on September 7, 2021. In any event,
to the extent that Defendant incurred expenses preparing for trial, that preparation will be useful if
this case proceeds to trial. Nothing in the record suggests Plaintiff acted in bad faith or willfully
abused the judicial process. Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses (Doc. 35) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 19, 2021
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2